Integrated Planning Guide...ARC Integrated Planning Guide P a g e | 1 INTRODUCTION Integrated...

Integrated

Planning Guide

2019

Edition

Adopted March 4, 2019

ARC Integrated Planning Guide

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1

ARC VISION, MISSION, and COMMITMENT ............................................................................................................................ 2

Guiding the Integrated Planning Process ........................................................................................................................ 2

OVERVIEW OF INTEGRATED PLANNING AT ARC ..................................................................................................................... 3

Cohesive Planning, Resource Use, and Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 4

Cycles of Planning ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

Alignment to District and System Planning..................................................................................................................... 4

GOVERNANCE AND PLANNING RESPONSIBILITY .................................................................................................................... 5

How It Works in Practice ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Plans by Governance Responsibility ............................................................................................................................... 8

PRIMARY PLANS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Institutional Equity Plan ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

Educational Master Plan ................................................................................................................................................... 10

Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................................................................... 11

FOCUSED PLANS .................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Distance Education Plan .................................................................................................................................................... 12

Employee Development and Retention Plan .................................................................................................................... 13

Facilities Master Plan ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

Strategic Enrollment Management Plan ........................................................................................................................... 15

Sustainability Plan ............................................................................................................................................................. 16

Technology Master Plan .................................................................................................................................................... 17

PROGRAM REVIEW AND UNIT PLANNING ............................................................................................................................ 18

Cyclical Pattern .............................................................................................................................................................. 19

Program Review ............................................................................................................................................................ 20

Annual Unit Planning .................................................................................................................................................... 21

INTEGRATION WITH RESOURCE PRIORITIZATION AND ALLOCATION................................................................................... 22

Capital Projects ............................................................................................................................................................. 23

Hiring Prioritization ....................................................................................................................................................... 23

Allocation Responsibility ............................................................................................................................................... 23

SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION .................................................................................................................................................... 24

Assessing the Integrated Planning Process ................................................................................................................... 24

Assessing Institutional Progress .................................................................................................................................... 25

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX A: Multi-Year Integrated Planning Calendar ........................................................................................................ 27

APPENDIX B: Sample Progress Evaluation Form ................................................................................................................... 29


P a g e | 1

INTRODUCTION

Integrated planning is an ongoing, systematic process designed to create synergy between various plans and the allocation of resources to ensure that institutional priorities are achieved. A culture of inquiry and data-informed dialogue is central to a planning framework which continuously supports, assesses, and enhances the institution’s capacity to provide a highly effective learning environment.

The ARC Integrated Planning Guide is intended as a reference which defines the essential components of the planning structure in the context of American River College. The guide includes an overview of the planning processes; highlights governance and planning responsibilities; describes various institutional plans, program review, and annual unit planning; discusses evaluation mechanisms; and provides a clear indication of how planning drives resource allocation. Each individual plan is represented by a fact sheet which can be used independently from the remainder of the guide.

Acknowledgements During the 2016-17 academic year, American River College embarked upon a strategic planning process that was shaped by three college-wide summits and resulted in a deliberate redesign that is touching every aspect of the institution including its governance and planning structures. This massive undertaking was a departure from past practice and commenced with the adoption of revised mission and vision statements as well as a formally articulated commitment to social justice and equity.

While it emerged from the ARC Redesign, the ARC Integrated Planning Guide builds upon the work of multiple groups. First, the ARC Program Review Committee identified a need to refine the existing program review process and defined clear goals to inform the effort. Simultaneously, the ARC Governance Task Force developed the ARC Participatory Governance and Integrated Strategic Planning Framework which created a streamlined and action-oriented governance structure with capacity to implement the college’s strategic plans and oversee its integrated planning processes.

Finally, the Integrated Planning Improvement Project Team was formed in 2017-18 and charged with designing a comprehensive institutional planning process that (1) aligns and links all levels of college-wide planning, from strategic and master planning to program review and unit planning; (2) ensures each planning level is integrated, highly effective, and efficient; and (3) incorporates where applicable, effective linkages to resource allocation. Through evaluation of existing systems and substantial dialogue, the project team redesigned the program review and annual unit planning process and formulated the integrated planning structure documented in this guide. Special thanks to the members of the project team for their invaluable input.

Project Team:

Kuldeep Kaur (Chair) Alisa Shubb (Co-Chair) Corinne Arrieta Jan DeLapp Adam Karp Inna Linnyk

Chris Olson Rina Roy Yuj Shimizu Jeffrey Stephenson Beth Madigan (Staff Support) Olga Prizhbilov (Alternate Staff Support)

Project Sponsor: Institutional Effectiveness Council

Project Consultant: Cheri Jones


P a g e | 2

ARC VISION, MISSION, and COMMITMENT

American River College has a clear vision, mission, and commitment to social justice and equity which guide the work of the college and its employees. The vision and mission are regularly reviewed, and when deemed appropriate, updated to reflect the institution’s ongoing promise to cultivate the best interests of its students and nurture the educational attainment of the greater Sacramento region. The institution’s strong commitment to social justice and equity defines how its mission is accomplished and the role that the college serves within the local community.

Guiding the Integrated Planning Process

All planning and resource allocation processes at American River College are fundamentally grounded upon the institutional mission. The mission serves as a solid foundation for planning and provides clarity to decisions about resource allocation. The student-centric focus of the mission ensures that student learning and achievement are at the forefront of efforts to enhance institutional effectiveness.

While all planning processes are expected to build upon the

stated mission and commitment to social justice and equity,

these beliefs rise to the forefront in the program review

processes. Participants are directly asked to consider and

assess program alignment by responding to the following

prompts:

How does the unit contribute to achievement of the

mission of American River College?

How will the unit’s intended enhancements support

the college’s commitment to social justice and equity?

Further, all institutional plans are vetted through a

governance structure that was deliberately crafted to support

strategic planning and which uses the mission and

commitment as a mechanism to test the integrity of draft

plans prior to adoption.

MISSION: American River College places students first in providing an academically rich, inclusive environment that inspires critical thinking, learning and achievement, and responsible participation in the community. American River College, serving the greater Sacramento region, offers education and support for students to strengthen basic skills, earn associate degrees and certificates, transfer to other colleges and universities, and achieve career as well as other academic and personal goals. COMMITMENT TO SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY: American River College strives to uphold the dignity and humanity of every student and employee. We are committed to equity and social justice through equity-minded education, transformative leadership, and community engagement. We believe this commitment is essential to achieving our mission and enhancing our community.

Adopted May 2017

VISION: Transform the future of all students and our community through inclusive, equitable education.


P a g e | 3

OVERVIEW OF INTEGRATED PLANNING AT ARC

American River College (ARC) has intentionally designed a systematic and cohesive structure for integrated planning across all levels and aspects of the institution. The structure is based on an ongoing cycle which ensures that each individual planning process can inform, and subsequently be informed, by the work of other planning processes. Resource allocation occurs as a direct result of planning and enables the implementation of planned activities. Evaluation of both the process and the college’s progress ensures that integrated planning supports institutional effectiveness. Throughout the cycle, each planning component contributes intended outcomes that will foster an environment of social justice and equity by which the college achieves its mission.

Figure 1: Overview of ARC Integrated Planning Model


P a g e | 4

Cohesive Planning, Resource Use, and Evaluation

The integrated planning model used at ARC flows through a continuous sequence of planning followed by resource

allocation which enables implementation through which progress can be evaluated as a precursor to more planning.

The ARC model hinges upon three primary planning processes at the institutional level that provide analysis as well as

the long-range and mid-range guidance necessary to develop cohesive plans for the college and its programs. Building

upon the framework of the Institutional Equity Plan, the Educational Master Plan and Strategic Plan guide the

development of multiple institution-level plans focused on topics of strategic importance. ARC currently recognizes a

suite of six focused institutional plans.

Primary Plans Focused Plans

Institutional Equity Plan Educational Master Plan Strategic Plan

Distance Education Plan Employee Development and Retention Plan Facilities Master Plan Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) Plan Sustainability Plan Technology Master Plan

Relying on qualitative and quantitative data, planning processes are expected to evaluate the current reality and scan

the horizon. Based on this assessment, the process develops an intended route to follow and specifies how the

institution or program (unit) will navigate towards its desired future. At the program level, planning involves a

comprehensive program review at designated intervals and short-term unit planning which occurs on an annual basis.

By design, integrated planning processes align goals and objectives across various plans. For example, each action step

generated through unit planning is mapped to one or more strategic goals at the institutional level. This intentional

mapping ensures that planned activities and resources work synergistically.

Cycles of Planning

The integrated planning cycle is synced to the seven-year accreditation cycle allowing each major plan to be revisited

prior to the institution’s next self-evaluation. Program review also follows a seven-year cycle with each cohort

participating once per cycle. A hiatus from program review and institutional planning is scheduled to coincide with the

writing year of the Institutional Self Evaluation Report (ISER) to ensure that the entire college community can participate

and contribute to the self-evaluation process while drawing on a comprehensive set of planning documents to inform

evaluative activities.

The full schedule of integrated planning is depicted in a multi-year planning calendar which is available in Appendix A.

Alignment to District and System Planning

While the mission statement clearly articulates the institution’s fundamental purpose, the architecture for integrated

planning also acknowledges that the college does not exist in a vacuum. The context for institutional planning is derived

from the national, state, regional, and local education landscape as well as the planning efforts of the Los Rios

Community College District and the Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges. As one of the four Los Rios

colleges, American River College participates in and influences a variety of district-level planning processes. Information

from these planning processes subsequently flows back to the college and is often considered in governance dialogue.


P a g e | 5

GOVERNANCE AND PLANNING RESPONSIBILITY

Shared oversight is a key component of American River College’s integrated processes of institutional planning, program planning, and resource allocation. Responsibility for each of the major planning processes is integrated with, and distributed through, the institution’s redesigned governance structure (shown in Figure 2 below). This intentional design ensures that planning is intertwined with the college’s standard practices and ongoing dialogue. Each entity within the governance structure has a clear role aligned with its specialized purpose. From a holistic perspective, the distributed model of responsibility leverages the unique expertise of each entity while also sharing accountability for planning and achievement of the institution’s strategic outcomes.

Figure 2: ARC Governance Diagram


P a g e | 6

How It Works in Practice

Each tier of the governance structure serves an important role in institutional planning as noted below in Table 1. For

further details on governance roles, please see the full descriptions in the ARC Governance Framework.

Role Description

Constituency Groups - Academic Senate - Associated Student Body - Classified Senate - Management Team

Supplies representatives to the other three tiers of governance (Executive, Council, and Project Team); serves as important stakeholders who offer the benefit of diverse perspectives, actively informs decision-making, and contributes to college planning and implementation efforts

Councils - Institutional Effectiveness

Council (IEC) - Operations Council (OC) - Student Success Council

(SSC)

Serves as the sponsor for project teams; considers draft plans and make recommendations to the Executive Leadership Team; monitors progress of planned activities and provides functional direction

Executive Leadership Team (ELT)

Considers recommendations from the councils on draft plans; provides input and final recommendations to the College President in establishing the charters, strategic direction, and accountability of councils and project teams; and ensures transparent communications to and from all governance and constituency groups

President’s Executive Staff (PES)

Provides strategic direction and final decision making for all governance and strategic project implementation processes (including implementation of institutional plans); supports the charters established by ELT with councils and project teams

College President Establishes strategic direction for the college with support of executive staff (PES); retains final decision making authority for the college including decisions regarding institutional planning and resource allocation

Project Teams Produces specific deliverables (including draft plans) and achieves assigned strategic outcomes within a specified timeframe based on the charge delineated in a project charter

Program Review Committee (subcommittee of the Academic Senate)

Provides operational support for the program review process, coordinates QuEST support, trains program review participants, and evaluates the process

Table 1: Governance Roles

In practice, much of the work involved with development and revision of major plans is delegated to a project team. Each team is sponsored by one of the councils and is chartered by the College President in consultation with the Executive Leadership Team (ELT). Charters serve to define the scope of work for each project, specify deliverables to be accomplished, set timelines for completing work, clarify boundaries, and provide other detailed guidance. The charters not only establish expectations for the project team, but also provide a mechanism by which the sponsoring council can assess progress. Over the duration of the project, the team participates in a collaborative planning process and develops a draft plan which is subsequently reviewed and adopted through the established governance channels.

Project teams for the upcoming academic year are typically identified and initiated each spring based on the schedule depicted in the Multi-Year Integrated Planning Calendar (see Appendix A). Project preparation usually occurs over the summer so that each project team is staged to begin the planning process at the start of fall semester. Draft plans are then finished by the end of February to allow sufficient time for governance review in the spring. Once a plan is adopted, units responsible for implementation of first year activities are able to submit resource requests. This typically occur in late spring allowing the requests to be funded prior to adoption of the final budget. Draft plans are also available early enough to allow consideration of potential resource needs during preparation of the tentative budget. See Figure 3 for an overview of how the integrated process typically progresses.

http://www.arc.losrios.edu/About_ARC/ARC_Governance/Governance_Framework.htm


P a g e | 7

Figure 3: Councils and Project Team Activity: Progression from Planning to Evaluation

While funding may be allocated from various sources, the President’s Executive Staff (PES) is responsible for ensuring appropriate resources are available as well as designating an implementation lead or project manager for various planned activities. Councils monitor execution and progress of plans which fall within their chartered responsibility.

Throughout the work, key documents such as the charters, agendas, and meeting notes of project teams, councils, and

the ELT are published in the Institutional Governance Online Repository (IGOR). Actions taken are also announced

through a governance newsletter that is distributed via email and posted on the college web site. Using these methods,

ARC strives for transparency so that the college community can maintain awareness of institutional planning efforts

(projects underway), council recommendations, and decisions to adopt draft plans.

https://apps.arc.losrios.edu/igor


P a g e | 8

Plans by Governance Responsibility

Oversight of each institution-level plan has been assigned to a specific council within the institution’s governance

structure. Whenever a project team is responsible for development of the plan, the oversight council serves as the

sponsor for the project team to provide monitoring, coordination, and support. Draft plans are presented to the

sponsoring (oversight) council which makes a recommendation to the Executive Leadership Team (ELT).

The assigned councils and governance review path for each plan is indicated in the chart below.

Oversight Planning Document Governance Review Path

Institutional Effectiveness Council

Institutional Equity Plan Institutional Effectiveness Council Executive Leadership Team

Strategic Plan Constituency Groups (all) Institutional Effectiveness Council Executive Leadership Team Presentation to Governing Board

Employee Development and Retention Plan

Employee Constituency Groups (Academic Senate, Classified Senate, Management Team) Institutional Effectiveness Council Executive Leadership Team

Operations Council

Facilities Master Plan Operations Council Executive Leadership Team As this plan is typically developed through a districtwide process, additional review may take place at the district level.

Sustainability Plan Operations Council Executive Leadership Team

Technology Master Plan Operations Council Executive Leadership Team

Student Success Council

Distance Education Plan Academic Senate Student Success Council Executive Leadership Team

Educational Master Plan Constituency Groups (all) Student Success Council Executive Leadership Team

Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) Plan

Student Success Council Executive Leadership Team

Table 2: Plans by Governance Responsibility


P a g e | 9

PRIMARY PLANS

Institutional Equity Plan

General Description:

The primary lens for all planning at American River College is the institution’s commitment to social justice and equity. The Institutional Equity Plan provides a framework through which this commitment can be considered and addressed across all other plans. The framework further defines and articulates an expanded view of the commitment that the College has made to its students and employees. It strives to develop a shared vision and guidance for realizing the commitment across the institution.

Intended Purpose:

Serves as a reference to guide other groups in actualizing ARC’s commitment to social justice and equity across all subsequent strategies, objectives, and activities.

Process for development:

The College President, in consultation with the Executive Leadership Team (ELT), charters a project team which is charged with development of the plan. The draft plan and any related deliverables are presented to the sponsoring council for consideration. The sponsoring council makes a recommendation to the Executive Leadership Team. When appropriate, constituency groups or other stakeholders may be consulted prior to consideration by the sponsoring council. [See Table 1, Plans by Governance Responsibility, for specific details.]

Example Topics:

At ARC, plans are often developed based on a project charter which would define the scope including any specific topics. Plans of this type typically explore topics such as: Social justice and equity as core values for student success Cultural perspectives of historically underrepresented groups Individual, institutional, and structural discrimination Diversity and inclusion Racism and hate crimes on campus Opportunity gaps which result in inequitable outcomes Equity-minded communication and language Equitable participation and engagement Institutional data through the equity lens Campus climate Leadership, professional development, and community engagement Research-based models and methodologies for change

Cycle:

Every 7 years

Oversight:


Expectations or Metrics:

Expectations and metrics are defined through the planning process. Once defined, the Institutional Effectiveness Council monitors progress based on these indicators.


P a g e | 10

Educational Master Plan


As the most long-range and comprehensive of American River College’s planning processes, this plan assesses the current state of the institution, projects its likely future, and proposes how it should develop in order to serve its mission effectively. During the planning cycle, the College intentionally examines its context, environment, and effectiveness. Based on analysis of the data, the College is able to identify key priorities and develop a long-term vision for the future which can then provide direction and serve as a navigational tool for all other planning processes.

Intended Purpose:

Sets the long-range vision for the institution and its planning processes; serves as a navigational tool to ensure all other plans are headed in the same general direction.


The College President, in consultation with the Executive Leadership Team (ELT), charters a project team which is charged with development of the plan. The draft plan and any related deliverables are presented to the sponsoring council for consideration. The sponsoring council makes a recommendation to the ELT. When appropriate, constituency groups or other stakeholders may be consulted prior to consideration by the sponsoring council. [See Table 1, Plans by Governance Responsibility, for specific details.]

Example Topics:

At ARC, plans are often developed based on a project charter which would define the scope including any specific topics. Plans of this type typically explore topics such as: Reflection on the college mission Context of post-secondary education (national, state, regional, and local) External and internal environmental scans Enrollment and program growth forecasts Stakeholder perceptions and interests Institutional strengths, opportunities, and challenges Key priorities or themes to address Vision of the future

o Assumptions and implications for other planning processes o Alignment of instruction and support services with future needs of students/community o Infrastructure and institutional support necessary to provide anticipated instruction and

services o Suggested approaches for realizing the vision

Cycle:

Every 14 years (with mid-cycle addendum if needed)

Oversight:



Expectations and metrics are defined through the planning process. Once defined, the Student Success Council monitors progress based on these indicators.


P a g e | 11

Strategic Plan


This plan establishes American River College’s mid-range goals and major strategies. The strategic goals are the broad outcomes that the institution, as a whole, hopes to achieve. The strategies are approaches by which the institution expects to make progress towards achieving the goals.

Intended Purpose:

Articulates the strategic goals which are subsequently used in various planning processes including annual unit planning. Through ARC’s integrated process, unit-level plans result in action steps and resource requests that are aligned to the strategic goals that the institution hopes to achieve.


Unlike other planning processes, ARC’s strategic planning does not have a standardized process involving project teams. The chair of the Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC) prompts dialogue regarding the planning process. Based on this dialogue, a recommendation is made to the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) to either conduct the planning process using a project team approach or other means (e.g., external expertise). Once the approach is determined, the process for development occurs and the draft plan is presented to the IEC for consideration. The sponsoring council would then make a recommendation to the ELT. When appropriate, constituency groups or other stakeholders may be consulted prior to consideration by the sponsoring council. [See Table 1, Plans by Governance Responsibility, for specific details.]

Cycle:

Every 7 years

Oversight:



Expectations and metrics are defined through the planning process. Once defined, the Institutional Effectiveness Council monitors progress based on these indicators.


P a g e | 12

FOCUSED PLANS

Distance Education Plan


This plan is intended to assess the current state of American River College’s distance education (branded as ARC Online); project the future needs of students and employers; and makes recommendations for developing distance education in a manner which can best support the college mission and strategic direction. It may propose implementation timelines or suggest next steps.

Intended Purpose:

Serves as a reference on the current state of ARC’s distance education efforts and supplies an actionable implementation plan for developing, maintaining, and enhancing distance education in support of the college mission.



Example Topics:

At ARC, plans are often developed based on a project charter which would define the scope including any specific topics. Plans of this type typically explore topics such as: Online programs and pathways Delivery methods and scheduling based on learner needs Responsiveness to industry and labor market factors Distance education technology, authentication, and accessibility Best practices in online teaching and learning including instructional design Emerging and innovative practices Non-traditional methods of assessing and certifying learning Resources and support services for online and/or remote learners Resources and support services for online and/or remote faculty Training and professional development Organizational structure and practices Regulatory context and compliance Distance education through the lens of equity and social justice

Cycle:

Every 7 years

Oversight:



Expectations and metrics are defined through the planning process. Once defined, the Student Success Council (oversight council) monitors progress based on these indicators.


P a g e | 13

Employee Development and Retention Plan


This plan recognizes American River College’s employee base as a valuable resource and is intended to determine how to best foster an environment that promotes employee development and retention in support of the college mission. The plan is primarily focused on existing employees and does not address future staffing needs or hiring prioritization. It may propose implementation timelines or recommend next steps.

Intended Purpose:

Serves as a reference on the current state of ARC’s human resources and supplies an actionable implementation plan for developing and maintaining a vibrant, resilient workforce in support of the college mission. This type of plan is often used as evidence for ACCJC Standard III.A. (Human Resources).



Example Topics:

At ARC, plans are often developed based on a project charter which would define the scope including any specific topics. Plans of this type typically explore topics such as: Recruitment of new employees New employee onboarding Training and professional development Retention and growth Succession planning Workplace climate and involvement Workplace safety Regulatory context and compliance Communication of information relating to employee development and retention Accreditation standards specific to human resources Employee development and retention through the lens of equity and social justice

Cycle:

Every 7 years

Oversight:



Expectations and metrics are defined through the planning process. Once defined, the Institutional Effectiveness Council (oversight council) monitors progress based on these indicators.


P a g e | 14

Facilities Master Plan


This plan is intended to assess the current state of ARC facilities across all locations; project future needs related to the maintenance, use, acquisition, renovation, construction, and demolition of facilities; and recommend strategies for developing the institution’s physical resources to best support the college mission. Because of the substantial time frame involved with capital projects, the facilities master plan involves both a long- and short-range outlook guided by the Educational Master Plan. This plan is often developed within a district-wide process and is inclusive of the main campus and center locations.

Intended Purpose:

Serves as a reference on the current state of ARC’s facilities and supplies as an actionable implementation plan for developing, maintaining, and enhancing the institution’s physical resources in support of the college mission. Identifies the major capital outlay projects that are in progress or on the horizon. This type of plan is often used as evidence for ACCJC Standard III.B. (Physical Resources).



Example Topics:

At ARC, plans are often developed based on a project charter which would define the scope including any specific topics. Plans of this type typically explore topics such as: Potential capital projects Standards for space utilization and facility planning Development guidelines for architecture, landscaping, lighting, and signage Pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, and public transportation Site design and functional zones Accessibility, safety, and security of facilities Regulatory context and compliance Communication of information relating to facilities Placemaking and gathering spaces Accreditation standards specific to physical resources Facilities and facility use through the lens of equity and social justice

Cycle:

Every 7 years

Oversight:

Operations Council


Expectations and metrics are defined through the planning process. Once defined, the Operations Council monitors progress based on these indicators.


P a g e | 15

Strategic Enrollment Management Plan


This plan is intended to assess existing enrollment management practices and cultivate optimum enrollment levels in alignment with the College’s strategic plan. The planning process utilizes strategic enrollment management methodology to holistically align efforts across all stages of the student life cycle to simultaneously foster student success. It may recommend approaches, propose implementation timelines, or suggest next steps.

Intended Purpose:

Serves as a reference on the current state of ARC’s enrollment activities and supplies an actionable implementation plan for recruitment, enrollment, and retention strategies desired to achieve and maintain optimum enrollment levels in support of the college mission.



Example Topics:

At ARC, plans are often developed based on a project charter which would define the scope including any specific topics. Plans of this type typically explore topics such as: Historical, projected, and optimal enrollment levels (targets) College image and brand Marketing and communication efforts Existing and potential enrollment streams Recruitment and outreach efforts Admission and front-door services Affordability and financial assistance efforts Program and service offerings Competitors and competitive advantage Partners and transition points (K-12, higher education, and employer) Enrollment policies, practices and procedures Student retention and completion Technologies which support enrollment and enrollment management Training and professional development Guiding principles and common definitions related to enrollment management Research and communication of information relating to strategic enrollment management Strategic enrollment management through the lens of equity and social justice

Cycle:

Every 7 years

Oversight:



Expectations and metrics are defined through the planning process. Once defined, the Student Success Council (oversight council) monitors progress based on these indicators.


P a g e | 16

Sustainability Plan


This plan is intended to advance the American River College value of sustainability which is stated as “recognizing its leadership role in the stewardship of natural resources, ARC is committed to reducing its negative impact on the environment.” It may recommend approaches, propose implementation timelines or suggest next steps.

Intended Purpose:

Serves as a reference on the current state of ARC’s sustainability efforts and supplies an actionable implementation plan for promoting responsible sustainability practices in support of the college mission.



Example Topics:

At ARC, plans are often developed based on a project charter which would define the scope including any specific topics. Plans of this type typically explore topics such as: Sustainability education and awareness Conservation and efficient use of resources Natural ecosystem (campus landscape, water, outdoor learning spaces) Green construction, alternative energy, and green technologies Campus operations and business practices Waste management Climate-friendly transportation Eco-friendly food Environmentally-friendly vendors and partners Integration with local and regional initiatives Training and professional development Advocacy, events, and communication of information related to sustainability Sustainability through the lens of equity and social justice

Cycle:

Every 7 years

Oversight:

Operations Council


Expectations and metrics are defined through the planning process. Once defined, the Operations Council (oversight council) monitors progress based on these indicators.


P a g e | 17

Technology Master Plan


This plan is intended to assess the current state of American River College technology, identify future needs, advance technological progress, and ensure consistency between technology initiatives and the College’s strategic direction in support of the college mission. For planning purposes, technology is broadly defined to include the technology infrastructure, equipment, applications, technical knowledge, user support mechanisms, data management practices, and technology standards which can be leveraged as strategic resources to create effective teaching, learning, and working environments. The plan may propose implementation timelines or recommend next steps.

Intended Purpose:

Serves as a reference on the current state of ARC’s technology and supplies an actionable implementation plan for developing, maintaining, and enhancing the institution’s technological resources in support of the college mission. This type of plan is often used as evidence for ACCJC Standard III.C. (Technology Resources).



Example Topics:

At ARC, plans are often developed based on a project charter which would define the scope including any specific topics. Plans of this type typically explore topics such as: Standardization of campus technology and technology use Technology support services for students and employees Technology infrastructure and networks Information security and disaster recovery Emerging technologies and technology-related equipment/furniture Innovative practices enabled by technology Technology literacy, access, and accessibility Perceived/demonstrated barriers to technology use (e.g., geography, connectivity, and availability) Data management, classification, and documentation Technology maintenance, lifecycles, and replacement plans Regulatory context and compliance Organizational structure and practices Training and professional development for end users and technical employees Communication of information and standards relating to technology and technology use Accreditation standards specific to technology Technology through the lens of equity and social justice

Cycle:

Every 7 years

Oversight:

Operations Council


Expectations and metrics are defined through the planning process. Once defined, the Operations Council (oversight council) monitors progress based on these indicators.


P a g e | 18

PROGRAM REVIEW AND UNIT PLANNING

Planning at the unit level is another essential component of ARC’s integrated planning structure. Focused unit planning is comprised of program review (program-level units only) and annual unit plans (all units) which are embedded in a single, cohesive model. Units use a data-informed approach to regularly assess effectiveness, plan for the future, and request resources to carry out those plans. While considerable emphasis is given to quality enhancement of the planning unit, the entire process is guided by institutional planning to ensure synergistic efforts.

Figure 4: ARC Program Review and Unit Planning Model

ARC developed this model based on a set of guiding principles reflecting an intent to create a supportive, streamlined process that is both meaningful and useful to the participants.


P a g e | 19

Cyclical Pattern

From the perspective of a single program-level planning unit, the combined model plays out over a seven-year cycle of planning, action, and evaluation of progress. Program review sets the objectives which drive the activities or action steps to which resources are allocated on an annual basis. Updates on progress towards the objectives are collected each year to identify any needed adjustments (course corrections) and the aggregated progress reports serve as the starting point for evaluation at beginning of the next program review cycle.

Figure 5: Seven-Year Cycle for a Program-Level Unit

It should be noted that focused unit planning, which takes place annually, is not restricted to the program-level units which participate in program review. Units at all other levels of the institution may also participate in annual unit planning to specify planned activities and request resources for the upcoming year.


P a g e | 20

Program Review

Intended Purpose: Assess program effectiveness and define objectives for program enhancement in alignment with institutional planning

Cycle:

Every 7 years per program

Oversight:

ARC Program Review Committee (Process Coordination) Institutional Effectiveness Council (Integrated Planning and Results)

Coordination of the Program Review Process Program-level planning units are grouped into cohorts which participate in self-evaluation through program review during an assigned planning year. There is a scheduled hiatus of program review during the year in which the institutional self-evaluation occurs to grant all programs an equitable opportunity to participate in the institutional review.

Figure 6: Program Review Cohorts

One notable characteristic of ARC’s process is the allocation of a cross-functional support team as a resource for each planning unit undergoing comprehensive program review. The use of Quality Enhancement Support Teams (QuEST) demonstrates ARC’s ongoing commitment to maintain high-quality programs and continuously improve institutional effectiveness.

The QuEST process is coordinated through the Program Review Committee which is intentionally designed to support and evaluate ARC’s program review processes. As a subcommittee of the Academic Senate and working closely with the Institutional Effectiveness Council, the Program Review Committee is comprised of faculty, classified staff, and administrators who can provide essential technical expertise as well as sharing valuable insight and thoughtful feedback when called upon by the program review participants.

Transparency and Institutional Dialogue At the end of program review process, each planning unit presents highlights of their program review to a broad audience including members of governance councils, the Program Review Committee, and administrators. This mechanism promotes further dialogue and ensures that the information extends beyond individual planning units and their assigned QuEST groups. The Institutional Effectiveness Council formally accepts the program review reports annually.


P a g e | 21

Annual Unit Planning

Intended Purpose:

Identify the short-term action steps and resources by which objectives will be achieved

Cycle:

Every year

Oversight:

Institutional Effectiveness Council (Integrated Planning and Results) President’s Executive Staff; Operations Council (Resource Allocation and Budget)

Annual unit planning occurs each spring to develop action steps and allocate resources for the upcoming academic year. Action steps are directly linked to goals from ARC’s Strategic Plan. This intentional linkage creates a clear connection between institutional planning, unit planning, and resource allocation.

Defining a Planning Unit Unlike program review which is limited to program-level units, planning units at all levels of the institution participate in the annual unit planning process. A planning unit is an entity that typically exists in the organizational structure and can be allocated resources. Planning unit levels and roles are defined below.

Role in Annual Unit Planning Typical Leads Example

Executive-Level Unit

Identifies action steps and related resource needs to implement strategies or objectives that cross multiple divisions or areas; may include requests for cross-functional initiatives that involve multiple areas

President Vice President

Associate Vice President

Instruction

Division/Area-Level Unit

Identifies action steps and related resource needs to implement objectives that cross multiple program-level planning units, but do not extend beyond the division or area

Dean Director

Humanities

Program-Level Unit

Identifies action steps and related resource needs to implement objectives for a program-level planning unit

Department Chair Director Manager

Supervisor or designated lead

Foreign Languages

Table 3: Definition of a Planning Unit

Relationship between Program Review and Annual Unit Planning For program-level planning units, annual unit planning advances the program’s objectives into action. One outcome of program review is creating an aspirational vision for the planning unit and one or more objectives which work towards achieving the vision. Annual unit planning identifies the specific action steps the planning unit intends to take during the upcoming year and any resources needed for implementation so that institutional resources can be effectively allocated to planned activities.


P a g e | 22

INTEGRATION WITH RESOURCE PRIORITIZATION AND ALLOCATION

Resource prioritization and allocation is informed by various institutional planning processes and supplies the necessary

resources to carry out planned activities.

Figure 7: Resource Prioritization and Allocation

As mentioned previously, annual unit planning is one of the primary methods by which funding of planned activities occurs and that captures the broadest scope of requests. These resource requests typically support unit-level activities based on program review, but may also include unit-level activities that are necessary to support grant-funded initiatives or institution-level plans (e.g., requests from the Information Technology department to support implementation of the Technology Master Plan). In either case, the activities and resource requests are explicitly aligned to the overarching goals specified in ARC’s strategic plan which ensures cohesive efforts across all plans. The unit planning diagram below (Figure 8) demonstrates how the continuous cycle enables resource allocation to be driven by planning.

Figure 8: Seven-Year Cycle for a Program-Level Unit

Continuous cycle of planning, resource

allocation, implementation and assessment


P a g e | 23

Capital Projects

The Facilities Master Plan (Campus Master Plan) process is integral to outlining the construction plan for new buildings

and facility modernization across all campuses of the Los Rios Community College District. Once the Facilities Master

Plan has been developed, resources are allocated from the District’s General Obligation Bond and/or state bonds.

Allocations for deferred maintenance may also come from District sources.

Hiring Prioritization

Another aspect that influences how resources are distributed is the hiring prioritization processes for the allocation of permanent personnel (new positions). While hiring prioritization is indirectly informed by program review and institutional planning, separate mechanisms have been established to determine the highest priorities for hiring. These processes are scheduled with regard to anticipated hiring timelines for permanent positions, particularly those faculty hires which must be in place for the next academic year. The exact timing of hiring prioritization may vary slightly, but generally follows the timeline described below.

Table 4: Faculty and Staff Hiring Prioritization

Allocation Responsibility

The primary responsibility for allocating resources based on planning processes lies with members of the President’s Executive Staff (PES) in conjunction with budget managers of categorical/grant-funded programs. Once resource requests are submitted by initiators and their supervising administrators, the PES discusses the prioritized requests, available funding, and potential funding sources. From April to August of each year, requests are designated for funding through the tentative and final budgets. This occurs as the College President and vice-presidents (who serve on PES) allocate resources to individual items in the areas they oversee. If additional funds become available after the final budget, unfunded requests are reviewed to determine how new funding can best be allocated to the remaining needs.

The Operations Council provides ongoing leadership for the oversight of resources for various professional development activities (faculty, classified staff, and management) and is also charged with reviewing funded priorities associated with college planning and resource allocation.

Faculty Hiring

September Request process opens

October Requests are generated; related data is compiled by the ARC Research Office

November Submitted requests go to Academic Senate for review; presentations are held; ranking of requested positions is sent to the College President

December College President publishes the list of approved (funded) positions based on LRCCD allocation

Spring semester Hiring process occurs for anticipated start in the fall

Staff Hiring

September-October

Potential staffing needs and/or “critical hires” identified through the annual unit planning process; deans and supervisors are asked to complete a screening application

November Classified Senate screening committee reviews applications and ranks the requests based on established screening criteria; report is compiled and recommendations are forwarded to the President’s Executive Staff (PES)

December College President publishes the list of approved (funded) positions

Spring semester Hiring process occurs as appropriate to fill positions in a timely manner


P a g e | 24

SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION

Embedded within and across all planning processes is a systematic cycle of evaluation. In order to fully consider its

effectiveness, American River College regularly assesses both (1) its process and (2) its progress. Each major planning

process is overseen by a specific entity within the governance structure which serves as the foundation for ongoing

evaluation and accountability related to the specific plan. Further, the Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC) assumes

responsibility for the overall evaluation of the integrated planning process and the Executive Leadership Team

holistically monitors the annual progress of all plans.

Evaluation Area Oversight Methods

Integrated Planning Process

Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC) Annual feedback from membership of ELT and the three councils via surveys or other methods

Cyclical review and update of the Integrated Planning Guide to examine the process as a whole

Program Review Process Program Review Committee (subcommittee of the Academic Senate) and the Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC)

Review of informal feedback collected via the QuEST process

Receipt of Program Review Reports by the Institutional Effectiveness Council

Progress on Major Plans - Institutional Equity Plan - Strategic Plan

Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC) Regular progress updates from those involved in implementation

Regular review of college-wide indicators (data) - Educational Master Plan Student Success Council (SSC)

Progress on Focused Plans - Distance Education Plan - Employee Development

and Retention Plan - Facilities Master Plan - Strategic Enrollment

Management Plan - Sustainability Plan

- Technology Master Plan

Council which has oversight for the plan (see Table 2 for details)

Regular progress updates from those involved in implementation of plans

Oversight of All Plans Executive Leadership Team Annual progress update to ELT from council chairs (see sample form in Appendix B)

Alignment of Resource Allocation

Operations Council (OC) Annual report received after final budget is adopted

Table 5: Evaluation Oversight and Methods

Assessing the Integrated Planning Process

On an annual basis, the Institutional Effectiveness Council solicits feedback from the membership of the Executive Leadership Team and the three chartered councils. The feedback may be collected via a set of questions included in a general governance survey or through other methods. Findings are discussed within the Institutional Effectiveness Council and considered more broadly when additional dialogue is needed to assess the results and determine potential improvements.

Additionally, the Institutional Effectiveness Council conducts a cyclical review of the content of this Integrated Planning Guide in order to intentionally seek opportunities to clarify and enhance the institution’s integrated planning process. This review is informed by the most recent survey results and other input. The review schedule is depicted in the Multi-Year Calendar provided in Appendix A.


P a g e | 25

Assessing Institutional Progress

Once a plan is adopted, one of the council chairs is expected to monitor execution of the plan over multiple years. The council receives progress updates from the individual(s) charged with implementation and provides functional guidance when needed. At the end of each academic year, the council chairs summarize the progress on each plan in a brief report to the Executive Leadership Team (see sample form in Appendix B). The Executive Leadership Team is then able to consider how the work across all plans is cohesively contributing towards achievement of ARC’s strategic goals.

The Institutional Effectiveness Council regularly reviews key metrics which indicate the institution’s progress across relevant indicators. Additionally, there are many accountability mechanisms by which progress is regularly measured and communicated to stakeholders of public institutions. Three vehicles used to showcase ARC’s institutional progress are:

Institutional Self-Evaluation Report and Institution-Set Standards Every seven years, the college evaluates and documents its effectiveness through the Institutional Self-Evaluation Report (ISER) which is submitted to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). The college also measures its performance level for student achievement indicators against institution-set standards and strives towards a stretch goal for each indicator. The methodology used recognizes statistically significant increases and/or declines in performance.

Program Self-Evaluation and Department-Set Standards Through program reviews, each program-level planning unit conducts a comprehensive self-evaluation and assesses its own progress over the last cycle. Each year, academic departments also review their department-set standards (i.e., institution-set standards at the department level) which prompts dialogue and when appropriate, action. Program-level planning units also regularly review progress related to student learning outcomes and student service outcomes. Programs which exceed their stretch goals are celebrated for their progress.

Institutional Research On an ongoing basis, the ARC Research Office monitors and publishes a variety of metrics and key performance indicators for the institution along with disaggregation by subpopulation.


P a g e | 26

CONCLUSION

The integrated planning process is intended to ensure that adopted plans are actualized so that the college moves

forward on the intended path. First, each of the college’s plans are broadly communicated through the constituency

representation of its councils as well as directly to stakeholders via the ARC web site. The ARC Integrated Planning

Guide and all of the institutional plans described herein are posted on a comprehensive integrated planning web page to

ensure the information is disseminated and readily available to the campus community.

Next, execution of the plans is prompted by the President’s Executive Staff which determines how to implement,

assigns responsibilities, ensures resources, and supports other decision-making required to operationalize each plan.

Finally, the institutional governance structure supplies ongoing monitoring and assessment of planned activities to

ensure that the indicated goals, objectives, and strategic outcomes are realized.


P a g e | 27

APPENDIX A: Multi-Year Integrated Planning Calendar The calendar below is synced to the 7-year accreditation cycle. Initial development of plans is compressed in order to have the full set of evidence by 2021. The regular schedule for integrated planning begins in 2022.

First full cycle on regular schedule

Plan or Activity Cycle 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31

Accreditation

7 years Write Follow-up

Write Midterm Report

Midterm Report

Due FA 18

Prep for ISER

Write the ISER

Site Visit (2022)

Write Midterm Report

Midterm Report

Due

Prep for ISER

Write the ISER

Site Visit (2029)

Vision-Mission-Values Review

7 years Done Review (2023-29)

Review (2030-36)


7 years New1

(2019-23) Develop

(2024-30) Develop

(2031-37)

Educational Master Plan

14 years New1 (2019-31)

Review* Develop (2031-44)

Strategic Plan

7 years Done (2017-21)

Extend to 2024

Develop (2025-31)


7 years Develop (2019-25)

Develop (2026-32)

Employee Dev. & Retention Plan

7 years In Progress2

In Progress2

New2 (2021-27)

Develop (2028-34)


7 years Develop1 (2019-26)

Develop (2027-33)

Strategic Enrollment Mgmt. Plan (SEM)

7 years New (2019-25)

Develop (2026-32)

Sustainability Plan 7 years New1 (2019-24)

Develop (2025-31)


7 years Develop (2020-26)

Develop (2027-33)

Program Review 7 years Group B Group C Group D Group E Group F (hiatus)

Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E Group F (hiatus)

Group A Group B

Annual Unit Planning

Annual Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Annual Process

Employee Survey (college-wide)

Varies District and College surveys conducted prior to the ISER; additional college surveys conducted as needed

District and College surveys conducted prior to the ISER; additional college surveys conducted as needed

Student Survey/ CCSSE

Varies CCSSE, SENSE, and/or other student surveys conducted on a regular basis

CCSSE, SENSE, and/or other student surveys conducted on a regular basis

Assessment of Program Review

Ongoing n/a Full Review

QuEST Feedback

QuEST Feedback

QuEST Feedback

QuEST Feedback

QuEST Feedback

QuEST Feedback

Full Review

QuEST Feedback

QuEST Feedback

QuEST Feedback

QuEST Feedback

QuEST Feedback

QuEST Feedback

Assessment of Integrated Planning

See note3

n/a n/a IPG Adoption

Council Feedback

Council Feedback

Council Feedback

IPG Full Review

Council Feedback

Council Feedback

Council Feedback

Council Feedback

Council Feedback

Council Feedback

IPG Full Review

Council Feedback

1 Off-cycle plan; future plans will follow the regular schedule and range of years. 2Work has already been done on a professional development plan which can serve as initial research to be further framed through the lens of the Institutional Equity Plan. A phased approach is suggested which would focus on professional

development in the first year, employee onboarding in the second year, and employee retention/succession planning in the third year which could then be compiled into a complete plan. 3The councils are generally chartered for three years. Annual feedback would be followed by a full review of integrated planning in the final year of each IEC charter.


P a g e | 28

The regular cycle of planning is configured to ensure all plans are revisited during each seven-year accreditation cycle and that planning documents are available

as a resource while the institution examines its effectiveness through the process of institutional self-evaluation.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7

Accreditation Site Visit

Midterm Report Prepare for ISER (Self-Evaluation)

Write the ISER (Self-Evaluation)

Review of Vision and Mission


Educational Master

Plan (Full development every 14 years; addendum if needed at midpoint)

Strategic Plan

Sustainability Plan


Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM)

Plan



Employee Development & Retention Plan

Program Review Cohort A

Program Review Cohort B

Program Review Cohort C

Program Review Cohort D

Program Review Cohort E

Program Review Cohort F

(hiatus)


P a g e | 29

APPENDIX B: Sample Progress Evaluation Form The Executive Leadership Team receives updates annually from the councils on the progress of plan implementation. The

form below is intended as a sample of the level and types of information to be reported.

Integrated Planning Guide...ARC Integrated Planning Guide P a g e | 1 INTRODUCTION Integrated...

Documents

Transcript of Integrated Planning Guide...ARC Integrated Planning Guide P a g e | 1 INTRODUCTION Integrated...